Generalization Mediates Sensitivity to Complex Odor Features in the Honeybee

Animals use odors as signals for mate, kin, and food recognition, a strategy which appears ubiquitous and successful despite the high intrinsic variability of naturally-occurring odor quantities. Stimulus generalization, or the ability to decide that two objects, though readily distinguishable, are similar enough to afford the same consequence [1], could help animals adjust to variation in odor signals without losing sensitivity to key inter-stimulus differences. The present study was designed to investigate whether an animal's ability to generalize learned associations to novel odors can be influenced by the nature of the associated outcome. We use a classical conditioning paradigm for studying olfactory learning in honeybees [2] to show that honeybees conditioned on either a fixed- or variable-proportion binary odor mixture generalize learned responses to novel proportions of the same mixture even when inter-odor differences are substantial. We also show that the resulting olfactory generalization gradients depend critically on both the nature of the stimulus-reward paradigm and the intrinsic variability of the conditioned stimulus. The reward dependency we observe must be cognitive rather than perceptual in nature, and we argue that outcome-dependent generalization is necessary for maintaining sensitivity to inter-odor differences in complex olfactory scenes.

[1]  Silke Sachse,et al.  The coding of odour‐intensity in the honeybee antennal lobe: local computation optimizes odour representation , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.

[2]  D. Papaj,et al.  PEAK SHIFT DISCRIMINATION LEARNING AS A MECHANISM OF SIGNAL EVOLUTION , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  DOES SELECTION ON FLORAL ODOR PROMOTE DIFFERENTIATION AMONG POPULATIONS AND SPECIES OF THE SEXUALLY DECEPTIVE ORCHID GENUS OPHRYS? , 2005, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[4]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[5]  D. S. Lee,et al.  Determination of floral fragrances of Rosa hybrida using solid-phase trapping-solvent extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. , 2000, Journal of chromatography. A.

[6]  Michel Renou,et al.  Repeatability of Pheromone Blend Composition in Individual Males of the Southern Green Stink Bug, Nezara viridula , 2004, Journal of Chemical Ecology.

[7]  D S Blough,et al.  Stimulus Generalization as Signal Detection in Pigeons , 1967, Science.

[8]  D. Foster,et al.  Thresholds From Psychometric Functions : Superiority of Bootstrap to Incremental and Probit Variance Estimators , 1991 .

[9]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Recognition of flowers by pollinators. , 2006, Current opinion in plant biology.

[10]  B. Smith,et al.  Intensity and the ratios of compounds in the scent of snapdragon flowers affect scent discrimination by honeybees (Apis mellifera) , 2005, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[11]  S. Firestein How the olfactory system makes sense of scents , 2001, Nature.

[12]  W. Potts,et al.  Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  José Martín,et al.  Scent may signal fighting ability in male Iberian rock lizards , 2007, Biology Letters.

[14]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[15]  M. Thomson,et al.  Odour concentration affects odour identity in honeybees , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  M. Bitterman,et al.  Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera). , 1983, Journal of comparative psychology.

[17]  C. Löfstedt,et al.  EVOLUTION OF REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES IN THE SEXUALLY DECEPTIVE ORCHID OPHRYS SPHEGODES: HOW DOES FLOWER-SPECIFIC VARIATION OF ODOR SIGNALS INFLUENCE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS? , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  P. J. Moore,et al.  Odour conveys status on cockroaches , 1997, Nature.

[19]  R. Menzel Searching for the memory trace in a mini-brain, the honeybee. , 2001, Learning & memory.

[20]  Harro J. Bouwmeester,et al.  Circadian rhythmicity in emission of volatile compounds by flowers of Rosa hybrida L. cv. Honesty , 1998, Planta.

[21]  L. Chittka,et al.  Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Animal Behaviour and Floral Evolution , 2005 .

[22]  F. Schiestl On the success of a swindle: pollination by deception in orchids , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[23]  E. G. Heinemann,et al.  Analysis of stimulus generalization with a psychophysical method , 1969 .

[24]  V. Jayaraman,et al.  Intensity versus Identity Coding in an Olfactory System , 2003, Neuron.

[25]  C. Galizia,et al.  Odor similarity does not influence the time needed for odor processing. , 2003, Chemical senses.

[26]  Carel ten Cate,et al.  Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  M. Thomson,et al.  Chapter Eight – Odor Perception and the Variability in Natural Odor Scenes , 2005 .

[28]  D. Blough Some contributions of signal detection theory to the analysis of stimulus control in animals , 2001, Behavioural Processes.

[29]  B. Smith,et al.  Olfactory conditioning in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: Effects of odor intensity , 1997, Physiology & Behavior.

[30]  B. Smith,et al.  Different thresholds for detection and discrimination of odors in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). , 2004, Chemical senses.

[31]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Neural representation of olfactory mixtures in the honeybee antennal lobe , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.

[32]  S. Laughlin,et al.  Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina , 1982, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.